Thanks to the Observer for bringing this alarming issue to the forefront. The sherbet in the bucket of soil is a powerful image of just how dangerous the dust and rubble on the site may be. When you see it portrayed in such a practical way it really makes you think, doesn't it. People can easily get baffled by science and developers can easily make statistics say whatever they want! Please continue to keep us all informed!

   Thank you to the Rochdale Observer for creating this weblink of archived news reports. The use of a bucket, a brick and sherbet powder at a council meeting was to get a very important message accross. The Hazardous Waste Regulations refers to 0.1% w/w (weight by weight) as the threshold at which hazardous waste is classed as 'carcinogenic' (cancer causing). That fraction of a percent amounts to 1 gram in a kilogram. The bucket of soil and the sherbet showed what a tiny proportion that was: 1. to be deemed cancer causing and; 2. to show how the powder dissapates into the soil. That has relevance because it appears that standard testing procedures first use visual inspection of soil to look for fibrous elements such as asbestos -how can just looking at soil accurately assess if it contains asbestos when 2 millions fibres can balance on a pinhead? We are calling for more stringent testing. The house brick dusted with a small amount of sherbet was to show how fine asbestos dust and fibre within building rubble and soil may pose a danger: The threshold limit of 0.1% weight by weight may be misleading: A piece of factory brick or rubble may weigh a couple of kilograms and the asbestos dust on it be a fraction of a gram - so the combined weights, taken as a whole, may technically fall outside the law governing hazardous waste. However the fine dust from the brick's surface can be easily released into the air and inhaled. You can't breathe in a house brick When the sherbet was blown off the house brick it billowed as a fine cloud in the room before the councillors. How far can exposed asbestos fibres travel from the Turners site? Did open wagons of crushed asbestos factory pass through these councillors' wards from November 04 to March 05? Did these open wagon loads contain traces of asbestos dust and fibre? The comments in the article about the Turner's factory being very dusty come from Turner's own documents- including a TBA report from 1957 that describes the air on the roof of the factory containing significantly more asbestos dust in it than in the Scheduled areas inside. http://www.spodden-valley.co.uk/1957_confidential_document.HTM That document suggests a damining example of environmental asbestos fallout that was settling on the factory buildings and grounds that are now subject to a planning application to build 600+ homes and a children's nursery. That is why the soil must be tested independently and to the most exacting standards. The whole town desrves nothing less than this. The same 1957 TBA document describes how 15,000lbs a week of asbestos dust from the factory's filter system was 'dumped to waste'. That amounts to 300 tonnes a year. For how many decades were such high amounts of waste dust generated? The above points are not opinions but facts - taken from TBA's own documents that indicate the extent of the contamination problems that must be addressed.